The term “cosmopolitanism” finds its roots in the Greek word “kosmopolitês,ˮ meaning “citizen of the world.” Based on this lexical definition, cosmopolitanism is the belief that all individuals—regardless of their political affiliations or communal, cultural, and territorial ties—are part of a larger community based on shared morality rather than nationalistic sentiments. It suggests that individuals should not be constrained by their nation-state citizenship or communal identities, as these hinder their ability to connect with and understand others. Instead of holding onto such restrictive identities, everyone should embrace a collective identity as a “global citizen” and prioritize allegiance to a universal human community that transcends national boundaries, aspiring to create a world that values and treats all individuals equally.
Cosmopolitanism emphasizes four main perspectives. The first perspective entails a collective commitment to the world or humanity that surpasses loyalty to the nation-state and local values. The second perspective embodies an attitude of openness, tolerance, and willingness to comprehend others’ diverse viewpoints and ways of life. The third perspective signifies the historical progression toward a peaceful world community, where conflicts can be addressed through the institutionalization of progressive and fair global citizenship and governance. The fourth perspective involves the normative principles of what should be done to promote intellectual, political, and aesthetic liberation. These four perspectives pertain to practices that encourage or embrace the process of subjective and collective lifestyle change.
Based on its focus (and the change it seeks to bring about), cosmopolitanism can be categorized into moral, political, cultural, and economic. Of these forms, moral cosmopolitanism is considered the core concept, while the other three are adjacent concepts. Moral cosmopolitanism emphasizes moral equality and human interconnectedness. It highlights the significance of personhood, which includes practical reasons and moral capacities, as the sole legitimate considerations for moral values, while group-related identities (e.g., nationality, ethnicity, race, religion, class, and gender) are seen as irrelevant. As all humans possess an equal degree of personhood, no individual holds a higher moral value than another. Thus, all humans, irrespective of their identities, are entitled to equal treatment and respect. This entitlement is accompanied by a moral responsibility toward fellow humans, where problems faced by certain individuals and/or groups are considered collective problems that must be addressed and resolved together.
Political cosmopolitanism highlights support for global governance systems and/or global citizenship. It argues that the current nation-state system is outdated and hinders human unity. Therefore, new political projects on a worldwide scale—such as political communities, schemes for legal institutions and procedures, and humanitarian assistance—are extremely important. There are two main schools of thought within political cosmopolitanism: weak political cosmopolitanism and strong political cosmopolitanism. The former seeks to promote more solid and ‘closer’ global cooperation, while the latter aims to completely replace the existing system with a global governance system that will unite all humans.
Cultural cosmopolitanism stresses the importance of preserving cultural diversity as a unique form of human expression rather than seeking to enforce homogeneity. It also focuses on concepts related to international migration—e.g., immigration liberalization, refugee protection, and universal hospitality—as migrants play a pivotal role in spreading culture and shaping multicultural societies. This leads to debates over how culture should be perceived in cosmopolitan societies, including discussions on whether humans should be united in monocultural or intercultural communities; whether migrants should assimilate, maintain their original culture, or form a whole new culture in the destination country; and whether universal values should override traditional cultures. All in all, the central question that cultural cosmopolitanism aims to address is whether the global community should be based on universal values and cultural uniformity or on absolute tolerance and cultural relativism.
Economic cosmopolitanism underscores the importance of economic relations as a catalyst for peace. It is built on the idea that international trade can facilitate mutual understanding among nations, foster communities united by common interests, and mitigate conflicts. Like the previous two concepts, economic cosmopolitanism is subject to different interpretations. For the leftists, economic cosmopolitanism is synonymous with political re-regulation and the endorsement of justice globalism, overseen by States and/or social movements. For the rightists, economic cosmopolitanism is synonymous with the dismantling of economic barriers and the endorsement of market globalism, all of them are laissez-faire. Moreover, the differing perspectives of these two political factions are reflected in their preferences: the leftists prioritize justice, positive rights, and redistribution of resources, while the rightists prioritize freedom, negative rights, and market solutions.
Although their focus differs, the four forms of cosmopolitanism share a common goal: addressing global problems. An issue can be classified as a “global problem” if it (a) is caused by actors, phenomena, and/or processes from different parts of the world; and (b) affects most, or even all, humans regardless of nation-state boundaries. Due to the magnitude of their impacts, global problems are way too big for individuals to handle alone. That is why coordinated action between various actors, particularly States, is essential in determining the objectives, how to achieve these objectives, and who is responsible for what.
Food insecurity is an example of a pressing global problem that requires collective action rooted in global solidarity. Ideally, everyone should have both physical and economic access to safe, nutritious, and adequate food to meet their needs and preferences for an active and healthy life—this is the definition of “food security,” as established at the 1996 World Food Summit. The attainment of food security hinges on four pillars: (1) Physical availability, which refers to the quantity of food accessible, determined by levels of production, supply, trade, and mass transfers or aid; (2) Economic and physical access, which refers to the ability to regularly obtain sufficient and suitable food; (3) Food utilization, which refers to how households make use of available food and how individuals optimize its nutritional value, determined by feeding practices, food distribution within households, dietary diversity, as well as food storage, processing, and preparation methods; and (4) Stability, which refers to the consistency and reliability of the food system, determined by weather and climate conditions, political stability, and economic factors. Failure to meet these four pillars will result in food insecurity, leading to hunger, malnutrition, chronic health issues, and numerous social challenges.
The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) scales divide food insecurity into five phases: none/minimal, stressed, crisis, emergency, and catastrophe/famine. The first phase is a condition where there are either (a) no significant disruptions in the food system; or (b) chronic, but not acute, food insecurity challenges. Households are able to meet their food and non-food needs without resorting to unusual and unsustainable strategies. During this phase, the average daily calorie consumption is 2,350 kcal per person, 80% of households have access to consistent quality and quantity of food supplies, people have stable incomes, and less than 5% of the population is acutely malnourished.
The second phase is a condition where disruptions in the food system, such as rising food prices and declining production levels, occur. Although these disruptions have not yet significantly impacted households’ ability to meet their food needs, stress-coping strategies must be put in place to meet some non-food needs. During this phase, the average daily calorie consumption is 2,100 kcal per person, there are minor disruptions in people’s incomes, and 5–10% of the population is acutely malnourished.
The third phase is a condition where disruptions in the food system, such as drought, conflicts, natural disasters, and economic shocks, create social vulnerabilities. As a result, households either (a) experience gaps in food consumption, reflected by high levels of acute malnutrition; or (b) struggle to meet their minimum food needs—even if they manage to do so, they must resort to crisis-coping strategies or sacrifice livelihood assets. During this phase, at least 20% of households have an average daily calorie consumption of slightly less than 2,100 kcal per person, people begin to experience depletion of assets and livelihood strategies, and 10–15% of the population is acutely malnourished.
The fourth phase occurs when society has no choice but to reduce food consumption. Households either (a) experience gaps in food consumption, reflected by very high levels of acute malnutrition and high mortality rates; or (b) manage to mitigate large food gaps, but only by employing emergency-coping strategies and asset liquidation. During this phase, at least 20% of households have an average daily calorie consumption of considerably less than 2,100 kcal per person, people’s incomes are no longer recoverable and their livelihood assets are rapidly depleted, 15–30% of the population is acutely malnourished, and the average daily mortality rate is one to two deaths per 10,000 people.
The final and most severe phase is marked by the collapse of the food system, leaving people extremely vulnerable to external shocks and violence. Households are no longer able to meet their food and non-food needs, despite employing all available coping strategies. During this phase, at least 20% of households are unable to access food, people are faced with the destruction of assets and livelihood strategies, at least 30% of the population is acutely malnourished, the average daily mortality rate exceeds two deaths per 10,000 people, and there is widespread devastation across various sectors.
Many international human rights declarations and treaties—including Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)—support the notion that “everyone is entitled to adequate food and should be protected from the threat of food insecurity (and its detrimental consequences).” It implies that the existence of food insecurity, especially IPC Phase 3 or above, which poses a threat to the lives and livelihoods of many people, should not be justified. Unfortunately, many countries, such as Madagascar, continue to grapple with high levels of food insecurity.
Since 2018, Madagascar has been facing the most severe recorded drought in four decades. These El Niño-induced conditions led to the failure of over 60% of agricultural output. Consequently, more than 1.3 million people are experiencing severe hunger (30,000 of whom are already in IPC Phase 5) and over 500,000 children are suffering from acute malnutrition (including 135,000 who are under the age of five) in 2021. The semi-arid climate and limited arable land make these impacts particularly apparent in the southern region of Madagascar, where over 80% of the population is forced to consume unconventional foods—such as locusts, cactuses, leaves, roots, seeds, and mud—in order to survive.
The long drought has not only caused food supplies to dwindle but has also created numerous socioeconomic issues. People have to sell their valuable assets in order to afford food because prices have quadrupled. This surge in food prices exacerbates the poverty rate, leading to an increase in the crime rate. Furthermore, there has been a rise in the number of children dropping out of school to assist their families in gathering food and water, a spike in gender-based violence rates, and a shift in migration patterns.
The significance of climate factors has led the UN to claim that Madagascar is on the brink of the first “climate-induced famine,” which is ironic, given that the country only contributes 0.01% of the world’s annual carbon emissions. However, it is important to note that climate change is not the primary cause of the crisis in Madagascar. Instead, the underlying issues stem from colonial and post-colonial policies that undermine local food systems, as well as political instability and governance failures that deepen structural poverty and constrain economic growth—all of which affect the availability and accessibility of food supplies. Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted economic activity, leading to income loss and higher food prices, worsening existing structural problems in Madagascar.
Pragmatically, this famine, while having significant impacts, specifically affects the people of Madagascar, making it a problem solely for the local government. However, through the lens of cosmopolitanism, the suffering endured by the Malagasy becomes a shared global concern, sparking a sense of solidarity. This prompts those not directly affected by the famine to feel morally compelled to contribute to its resolution. The spirit of global solidarity is manifested through ‘acts of kindness,’ such as the provision of aid by international organizations.
Since the onset of the 2020 lean season, the World Food Programme (WFP) has provided food assistance to 750,000 people in Madagascar, with 500,000 of them in the southern region, as part of efforts to address acute malnutrition. To expand the target number of beneficiaries to 900,000 people, WFP required an additional $35 million in funding. This funding was raised through the Flash Appeal and donations from independent organizations, such as the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which donated $45 million in 2022.
In January 2021, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) launched a $76 million Flash Appeal to provide humanitarian assistance, including food, clean water, sanitation kits, medicines, health services, and school supplies. The appeal, supported by various humanitarian partners, initially aimed to reach more than 840,000 people. In June 2021, the appeal was revised to $154.6 million (later revised again to $230.7 million), targeting 1.3 million people. As of May 2022, OCHA has raised $222.4 million (96% of the required funding) from 27 donor organizations and has successfully distributed aid to 1.29 million people (98% of the total target) across nine districts in Southern Madagascar, i.e., Amboasary, Ambovombe, Ampanihy, Bekily, Beloha, Betioky, Betroka, Taolagnaro, and Tsihombe.
Not limited to providing humanitarian assistance, international organizations are also helping Madagascar build resilience to the impacts of drought and other climate-related issues. The UN Country Team (UNCT), a part of the UN Sustainable Development Group (UNSDG), is collaborating with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the UN Development Programme (UNDP), the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and WFP on multisectoral programs, including advocacy on food and health issues, installation of solar-powered water desalination and irrigation systems, training and implementation of climate-smart agricultural practices, replanting of deforested land, training on waste management, and training of health workers. Similar efforts are also carried out by Action Against Hunger, which implements an integrated “nutrition + food security” approach to advocate for locally based sustainable agriculture.
The involvement of international organizations in addressing famine in Madagascar shows that problems faced by certain individuals and/or groups can be seen as collective problems that are ‘felt’ by the broader human community. By fostering global solidarity, this community can join forces on collective action aimed at solving the problems (or, at the very least, alleviating the suffering experienced by those directly affected). Ultimately, it will support the realization of a world where all humans are “global citizens,” as envisioned by cosmopolitanism.